There is absolutely no reason a government should make such things as denialism illegal. An act like that would certainly breed doubt immediately because the only reason to make something like that illegal IS because you're hiding something.
People are allowed to make their own choices. If they belive the holocaust isn't real, fine. When they discuss it, refute them.
In the US, the only time the line is crossed is when discussion calls for immediate and specific violence, could directly cause harm, or falls into the slanderous/libel and even that can be difficult to prove. I can see no reason for the above illegality of speech to expand.
Something like making holocaust denial illegal is borderline compelled speech. Sure, you could just not talk about the holocaust, but if you want or need to talk about it you must now espouse the official position of the government. Absolutely terrifying to think about.
Yes, exactly. Making something illegal is serious.
The result of making something like this illegal is:
1. Person is not allowed to talk OR
2. Person is allowed to talk but is now compelled to only espouse a message approved by the government.
Illegal speech in the US is speech which does harm or has a direct incitement to harm such as specifically calling for a violent action, shouting fire in a crowded theater, or lying about someone to harm their reputation and cause financial impact.
To make something like denialism illegal would require you to show that, by allowing someone to say it, they are causing direct and immediate harm. That's not the case here at all. Saying the holocaust didn't happen doesn't cause people to then go commit genocide. At worst it convinces people some horrific event didn't happen, but that horrific event is still horrific conceptually.
Denying vaccines work may convince people not to get them so maybe you'd argue direct harm there? But it's not clear to me how you can measure the harm since it's arguable that said unvaccinated person may get covid and be totally unphased. What about those people that got covid prior to the vaccine? How could you argue direct harm from them when they already have the antibodies sans the vaccine?
There's a problem and solutions with consequences. Every law limits freedom in one way or another. It's a case of how probable and sever is the problem compared to the consequences of the law.
In Germany the problem is Nazis and a choice about how to stop them doing it again. We have seen that such people can convince nearly an entire population (so the problem is likely) and start a world war (so the problem is extreme). Why would anyone debate the need for a law that limits a freedom in a case we consider pretty unworthwhile anyhow (limiting the freedom to deny the holocaust).
As for vaccines it's again a calculation where we know the problem is extreme (huge economic losses and deaths) and the likelihood increases based on how many people don't vaccinate - or whether people in specific jobs don't vaccinate. The calculation shouldn't be that hard.
Pretty sure that 1946 when the country was still full of old Nazi supporters the risk was pretty high. I don't think the risk is that high today, but the laws definitely served a good purpose when they were created.
If those in the positioning of governing achieve a sufficient disdain for the governed, they convince themselves that the populace is too stupid to pursue truth. You may find this a stretch, but it's roughly consistent with calling the voting public "deplorables."
I think it's already been touched on, but the reason Germany made it illegal is to prevent Nazism from happening again. The German government wasn't trying to hide anything. The German government was trying to prevent Nazi's from hiding something.
People are allowed to make their own choices. If they belive the holocaust isn't real, fine. When they discuss it, refute them.
In the US, the only time the line is crossed is when discussion calls for immediate and specific violence, could directly cause harm, or falls into the slanderous/libel and even that can be difficult to prove. I can see no reason for the above illegality of speech to expand.
Something like making holocaust denial illegal is borderline compelled speech. Sure, you could just not talk about the holocaust, but if you want or need to talk about it you must now espouse the official position of the government. Absolutely terrifying to think about.